Talk:Imperial Star Destroyer

To 69.44.40.206

I've temporarily crossed out some of the more dubious parts of your section, because I have not seen the sources for them, and they seem to contradict the sources I do have. If it turns out you have such sources, would you please return to remove the strikeouts and perhaps mention the sources? Thank you.

Not sure if this kind of thing is appropriate here, but I don't know where else to put it.

UPDATE: I just learnt from a more experienced Wikipedia editing friend that strikeouts are not favored here. Thus I'd make a fast update to remove the striked-out portions.

Where does this Imperator-class business come from? I have never seen it in any official source.

Before I try to look it up, just a question - Ever seen Imperial in an official source? --Golbez 06:27, Nov 19, 2004 (UTC)

How about this, from [1]: "The ship class was named after the Imperator in the Mandel blueprints of 1978, long before the present generation of references. With the exception of a few modest references in LucasArts games, the first-wave references have been unreasonably ignored by newer works, despite being generally just as accurate. The Mandel plans definitely precede the recent "Imperial-class" referencing. " "... the common mile-long destroyer known to the forces of the Galactic Empire as the Imperator-class star destroyer, and colloquially known as Imperial star destroyer to rebel operatives."

Yes, I have seen it in official sources. Several, in fact. The thing with the article the above quotation is taken from is that the ship from Mandel's designs is obviously not an Imperial-class Star Destroyer. It's too small. It's more likely another class of Star Destroyer entirely. Also, the Technical Commentaries are not a part of Star Wars canon.

The Databank at the official website [2] calls it Imperial-class. I don't think there's much that can top that. Oberiko 00:28, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The official website's Databank is not canon. The site maintainer, Pablo Hildago, often ignores the movies and Lucasfilm's own canon policy in favor of EU material that he personally likes.

There are several reasons why many people prefer the name Imperator over Imperial. First, every other Imperial warship shown in the movies has a class name ending in -tor: Executor, Acclamator, and Venator. Imperator obviously fits that pattern and Imperial does not. Second, "Imperial-class" is the product of ignorance and incompetence. How the "Imperial" class name was created:

Random person: "The Enterprise is an American aircraft carrier."

EU writers: "zOMG, that must mean it's an American-class aircraft carrier!"

3PO: "The odds of surviving a direct assault on an Imperial Star Destroyer...!"

EU writers: "zOMG, that must mean it's an Imperial-class Star Destroyer! I are teh smart!"

The smaller size of the Imperator on the Mandel blueprints doesn't mean much. It's clearly intended to be the same class as the ships in the movies. It's similar to the EU claims about the Executor's length. The size shown in the movies is what counts. -- Vermilion 12:27, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

"First, every other Imperial warship shown in the movies has a class name ending in -tor: Executor, Acclamator, and Venator."

The Acclamators aren't Star Destroyers, and the Venators never appeared in a movie. By your logic, the correct name of the Victory-class Star Destroyer is the Victor-class? What about the Sovereign-class and the Eclipse-Class?

"It's similar to the EU claims about the Executor's length. The size shown in the movies is what counts."

I fail to see how they are similar at all. Are you saying the Imperial Star Destroyer isn't 1.6 km long?

It's true that Acclamators aren't Star Destroyers, but it's still a canon class name. The Venator-class is in Revenge of the Sith. It can be seen in the ROTS trailer. The four -tor class ships are all supposed to have been built by Kuat Drive Yards. The Victory, Sovereign, and Eclipse classes were not built by KDY, so the -tor naming convention might not apply. It might also be possible that Victory was built before the -tor naming started or that Eclipse and Sovereign are code names and not class names.

"I fail to see how they are similar at all. Are you saying the Imperial Star Destroyer isn't 1.6 km long?"

No. Most EU references have the Executor as either 8 km or 12.8 km long, while the movies show it to be 17.6 km long. The Mandel blueprints have the Imperator as 686.5m long, while the movies and most other sources show it to be 1600m long. -- Vermilion 05:49, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Here are the disputed specs of the Star Destroyer in the book shown here.

Kuat Drive Yards Imperial I-Class Star Destroyer

Size: 1,600 meters long

Does that help? -[[Ryan]] ^{(me) (talk)} 17:36, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

The weapons systems are not very capable of targeting at point-blank range,

"The weapons systems are not very capable of targeting at point-blank range, a weakness exploited by the Rebel fleet at the Battle of Endor."

Since when? I recall Admiral Akbar stating the entire rebel fleet won't last long at that range. I've never seen any evidence that ISD's are not very capable of targeting at point blank range?

If I remember correctly, the main reason for attacking the Star Destroyers at point blank range was that the Death Star couldn't target them if they were that close to the Star Destroyers — it wasn't because the Star Destoyers couldn't fight at that range.

Count that as another vote to do something about the sentence in question. Aidje 15:17, 2005 Mar 10 (UTC)

Move

Shouldn't these conversations be located at Talk:Star Destroyer? This discussion page is for Imperial Star Destroyer, which is a redirect to Star Destroyer. -[[Ryan]] ^{(me) (talk)} 17:19, 9 May 2008 (UTC)